Connect with us

Commentaries

Safety Third

Published

10 years ago

on

Safety Third Sticker
By Masked Crusader
The death of Russell Koh was a tragedy which resonated with many parents.
On 24 April 2008, 8-year old Russell died after being flung out of a school bus which was involved in a traffic accident. The incident sparked off a firestorm among Singaporeans. An article two weeks later in The Straits Times started with:
“Enough is enough. No other child should die.”
The tragedy was the subject of a Parliamentary session, where several MPs appealed for seat belts to be made compulsory in school buses. The following are some of the reported pleas:

“It is high time seat belts are made compulsory on school buses and the rule should be implemented immediately. This is very urgent. Young lives are at stake.”

MP Cynthia Phua

“One death is really one too many.”

MP Lim Wee Kiak

“The government has to set the standard for them [private school bus operators].”

MP Ong Kian Mian

“Seat belts are compulsory in cars, so why are they not compulsory in other vehicles? It doesn’t make sense because the dangers are the same for cars, vans or buses.”

MP Zainudin Nordin

The issue of safety on school buses was not new and had been discussed in Parliament as early as 2005. The solutions at that time were reduced traveling speeds for buses, automated hazard lights for buses when stationary, and the licensing of attendants on buses. A study on seat belts in school buses had also been commissioned but there were concerns about the costs of fitting buses with seat belts and who would bear the expense. In 2006, the then Transport Minister, Yeo Cheow Tong reported:

“As a result of these safety requirements, there have been no cases of children suffering serious or fatal injuries while traveling on a school bus over the past six years.”

In fact, there was a fatality in 2006 and this probably contributed to the intensity of calls for seat-belts following Russell’s death. In 2009, the Land Transport Authority finally made it compulsory for all school buses to be fitted with seat-belts. The Government would provide financial assistance to small bus operators for either the purchase of new buses or retrofitting older buses as well as for any booster seats that may be required for younger children.
images
I applaud the MPs who spoke up on the issue. Their convictions resulted in positive change.
However, I also feel compelled to question the sincerity of these MPs who say nothing when year after year exponentially more lives and limbs of foreign labourers are lost in accidents involving lorries and pick-ups. [Extensive accounts and gruesome accident images of these can be found here.] Is the conviction of politicians only reserved for matters that impact those who vote for them?
It is an absolute travesty that in a country which is the millionaires’ playground, where ministers are the highest paid in the world, and whose citizens are among the highest wage earners in the world, we see workers being transported in the back of trucks made to carry cargo. Our parliamentarians who are empowered to do something about this illegal activity not only keep quiet about it but even craft legislation that makes it legal to transport humans as cargo!
A naive list of “stringent measures to enhance safety of workers transported on lorries”, to be phased in over three years from 2009, can be found here. The penalties are a joke.
lorry4
It seems to be lost on the authorities that it is pointless to legislate for the infinite combinations of goods and people that can be carried in the back of lorries. In most cases, the goods themselves are the main cause of injuries to the workers. It is clear that the “one death is one too many” refrain does not refer to the lives of foreign workers.

IMG_2442

Photo taken 15 August 2014

Politicians must be made to realize that blood is on their hands. Employers too. Blood is on all our hands if we do nothing to stop the practice. We are all complicit by our inaction.
Construction sites around the country declare with some bravado that safety comes first. In English. Not in the language of the workers. So who are the messages for? Surely they are nothing more than public relations efforts since these companies continue to transport their workers in the back of lorries knowing that they are risking the lives of their employees. It makes a mockery of the banners these employers hang up at the construction sites. Safety First means nothing is prioritized higher than the safety of the employees. These banners should, therefore, read “Safety Third (after Costs and Convenience)”.
The Ministry of Manpower considered occupational safety so important that, in 2008, it formed the Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSH Council) comprising—incredibly—of “18 leaders from the major industry sectors (including construction, manufacturing, marine industries, petrochemicals and logistics), the government, unions and professionals from the legal, insurance and academic fields”. The vision of the Council is to forge “a country renowned for best practices in WSH”.
The WSH Council replaced the Singapore National Safety Council, established in 1966, which was quietly disbanded after a financial scandal involving several key members.
It is incredulous that industry leaders with an alphabet soup of credentials did not immediately identify the one occupational hazard they would see every day on their chauffeur-driven trips to and from work. Rather, within three years of their appointment, the Council members deemed that the priority was to start a new Workplace Safety and Health Institute (WSHI) to address the problem of WSH through training, something that was already being done by the Workforce and Development Agency.
To provide the WSHI with instant credibility, the Council appointed as its Executive Director, Dr Jukka Takala, who had served as Director of the European Union’s Agency for Safety and Health at Work. It has been three years since his appointment but Dr Takala does not seem to have noticed yet that workers are transported as if they are goods in Singapore, which would not be permitted in most, if not all, countries in the EU. And, that there is a chapter missing from his institution’s training manuals—the one on transport safety.
As an aside, what this demonstrates is that the culture in Singapore is so entrenched, so fossilized that even when we hire experts from overseas on the basis that they bring new ideas and international best practices, the so-called experts are unable to do anything but conform if they want to keep their highly-paid jobs. There are many in Singapore both in the private sector and civil service who will attest to this.
It seems to escape the WSH Council that the real problem lies in the lack of will amongst the Government, unions, and industry to protect lowly foreign workers, particularly if money needs to be spent to do so. And, that legislation and tough laws—among the best practices in first world countries—could inexpensively and expeditiously address the problem. Instead, we have legislation that ought to be unlawful, councils with busy high flyers, and WSH training manuals with missing chapters.
As is the case in most Government agencies in Singapore, disproportionate amounts of energy are focused on strategizing and developing grandiose vision and mission statements, designing logos and describing their finely-nuanced meanings, all of which look impressive on plaques on their premises when foreign dignitaries come to visit. Let’s not forget the obligatory swanky multi-million dollar buildings.
Really, what is needed is for politicians to dust off the moral compasses they left in their drawer following the day they asked for seat-belts in school buses and bring it with them to Parliament every single time.
Perhaps the best example of the malaise present in all sectors of society is to be found in the aftermath of an accident last year along the Pan-Island Expressway in which nine construction workers were seriously injured.
The Government, in all its wisdom—presumably after consulting with its WSH Council—introduced new safety rules which required lorries to fit canopies and higher railings to solve the problem. The following are some jaw-dropping statements included in The Straits Times article on the matter:

  • Straits Construction executive director Kenneth Loo pointed out that it would be uneconomical for companies with few workers at each worksite to charter buses.
  • Mr Or Toh Wat, the group managing director of construction firm OKP Holdings, argued that the use of buses just to ferry workers will only add to congestion on roads here. “There will be a heavy impact,” he said.
  • The director of Safety@Work consultancy, Mr Raj Singh, said it was a question of money. Lorries can carry both equipment and people. He said: “I have seen in other countries, they use buses to ferry workers. Lorries are a lot cheaper. But they don’t have seat belts, so they’re not very safe.”
  • Labour MP Yeo Guat Kwang said that over the last few years, a lot of effort has gone into improving safety but added that “each accident is still one too many”. “What I’m concerned about is the root of the problem – which is the behaviour of unsafe drivers, be it lorry drivers or other motorists.”   …
  • The Land Transport Authority said that since September 2009, enhanced safety measures have been progressively implemented. It urged all employers, lorry owners and drivers to comply with regulations and practise safe driving habits.

Basically, those who should know better are all agreed on one thing—what works best for Singapore is “Safety Third”!
D73328WP
This article was first published at maskedcrusader.blogspot.sg

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending